A Quote by Ariel Levy

I'm a writer, not an activist. My job is to analyse things, to think them through and examine them. — © Ariel Levy
I'm a writer, not an activist. My job is to analyse things, to think them through and examine them.
I firstly don't think of myself as an activist, I never have. I always say that, I think this word "activist" is relatively recent one. I don't remember when people started being called that or what it means. It reduces both writers and activists, it makes it seem as though a writer's job is to just keep people entertained with best-selling books and the activist's job to keep on repeating the same thing without a great deal of subtlety and intelligence. I don't think either is the case.
To call someone like me a writer-activist suggests that it's not the job of a writer to write about the society in which they live. But it used to be our job.
I never overtly analyse my own movies, I don't think that's my job to do that. I just muddle through and do what I think is best for the movie.
Your job as a writer is to find storylines, narrative structures, and characters to show the things that you believe rather than saying them or telling them.
America was founded on the fissure between slave states and free states, so these huge fault lines are just built into the American project. How we repress them, express them, deal with them, talk around them, think through them, don't think through them, is fascinating to me.
It's about what the players are doing. My job is facilitate that. My job is to put them in positions to succeed. My job is to listen to their ideas, take them if they're good, quietly push them to the side if they're not. My job is to help them grow.
I think that, as a writer, while it's your job to construct stories, you have to navigate your way through them with your heart.
Most coaches' attention to detail is very good; it's their job. They have to analyse teams, and they have to analyse their own team.
The trouble with today is, things are a little easy. Teens don't feel as if anyone needs them or their talent, and that's wrong. We need them. They are the future. And if I can encourage them to think about the sciences as something they could do, then I think I've done a good job.
If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.
I love to hang out and talk to people on set, especially when I start a new job to get to know them. I like to learn things from the crew so I sit around and ask them technical questions, when I think of them.
I think that as a writer your responsibility is to search for and stir up the things that are in this world. There is violence in all of us, and beauty, and strength, and weakness. What's my job? To only write about the good and the beauty, or is it to write about all of it? That's my greater responsibility, to write about them as I see them and as they are.
When I am lonely for boys it’s their bodies I miss. I study their hands lifting the cigarettes in the darkness of the movie theaters, the slope of a shoulder, the angle of a hip. Looking at them sideways, I examine them in different lights. My love for them is visual: that is the part of them I would like to possess. Don’t move, I think. Stay like that, let me have that.
People are not "things" to be manipulated, labeled, boxed, bought, and sold. Above all else, they are not "human resources." They are entire human beings, containing the whole of the evolving universe, limitless until we start limiting them. We must examine the concept of leading and following with new eyes. We must examine the concept of superior and subordinate with increasing skepticism. We must examine the concept of management and labor with new beliefs. And we must examine the nature of organizations that demand such distinctions with an entirely different consciousness.
I think I'm probably too close to the seventies to be able to analyse them (it?) effectively.
They seemed like a team. And I think it is fair to say that Roosevelt was the consummate politician and that Eleanor was the socially conscious activist. It gave them a nice combination of yang and yin, which they took advantage of. And I think it worked very well for them politically.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!